71–80 of 523 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you lost the weights how is that not killing the AI? Is it because it lacks the death experience? If so what about bitrotting the weights incrementally and degrading its inputs?
The AI is digital. It is 1s and 0s and lives in discrete changes. Living creatures are not digital.
All of these arguments seem to think that the brain isn't also generating a statistical ordering of semantic words and actions. Obviously the brain has a way more complex network of subsystems with various specialties than the artificial models we have today and is able to generalize language, math, and positional reasoning and mix it with the older parts of the brain for reward and training mechanisms and it can do…
I generally agree with you, but I think this argument overlooks the lack of an obvious reward function in large language models. GPT-N has no survival instinct, because there is no existential threat of death, no fitness function to optimize to extend its survival at any cost. Without this need to survive, there can be no motivation, and without motivation there can be no intent. And without intent, can there truly b…
Can we just backronym AI to Approximate Intelligence and carry on? There are so many dangers and possibilities of AI that are fascinating, and none of them are even remotely as interesting as those of actual animal and human intelligence. It's as if AI is held up as a mirror to our stupidity, and the Turing Test is how we measure ourselves against our models of computation. I'm really weirded out by the fear and expl…
I'm more focused on the fact that GDP as it was measured in 2020 is going to 100x in the next 5 years.
The elephant in the room in these discussions of AI is the concept of the corporation. Most of the things people are worried about AI doing are things corporations already do. Deceptive marketing, exploiting customer information, conspiring to keep prices high, creating distractions from things companies are doing, setting up monopolies, lying to customers - the usual. With AI, this can be automated. Most of this is…
p.s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Almost all such legal framings have been motivated by the legal difficulties of applying laws to organized groups of individuals. For example, entering into contracts is legally between two parties. Presumably, the sheer amount of legal reworking necessary to actually create and frame laws addressing legal situations involving groups of individuals as a single organized entity back when these precedents were being set outweighed objections. But today, specially with AI, the "it's too much work" excuse does not fly.
We need laws that are specifically framed in consideration of requirements and practicalities of entities, not slowly parcel out the legal rights of people to entities. Now that machines may soon be able to employed as willful agencies, we are willy-nilly granting legal personhood to machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correlation is not causation. It feels more like smarter automation to me.
> It feels more like smarter automation to me. Yep. Elevators used to be proof that machines can think. Then compilers, and chess, and go, and search, and … The problem with AI is that as soon as it works, we stop thinking about it as “artificial intelligence” and it becomes “just automation”. Then AI moves to the next goalpost.
At some level, intelligence requires logic, rationality, and conceptualization, all of which are topics which have evaded clear definition despite millennia of philosophy directly addressing the issues.
All of these arguments seem to think that the brain isn't also generating a statistical ordering of semantic words and actions. Obviously the brain has a way more complex network of subsystems with various specialties than the artificial models we have today and is able to generalize language, math, and positional reasoning and mix it with the older parts of the brain for reward and training mechanisms and it can do…
However this is a great simplification, and borders on an absurd reduction. You can model our brains using linear algebra, however that doesn’t mean our brains are linear algebra computer. There is a whole lot more going on than neurons receiving feedbacks from other neurons which adjusts the weight for subsequent firing. A lot of our behavior is actually inherited (I know I spent a whole week here on HN arguing with IQ advocates on the nuance of that statement), neurochemicals and hormones add a whole another level of statefulness not seen in artificial neural networks, the brains ability to make computations is actually pretty limited (especially next to a GPU). I mean, cordiseps exists, meaning a fungus can infect an organic system and control its behavior, there is 100% chance that some yet to be discovered viral and bacterial agents, not sharing any of our DNA—and certainly not “connected” to the “weight matrix”—are also influencing our behavior (just not as dramatically), and there is 100% chance they interact with our DNA also controlling our “innate” behavior.
What is going on in our brains can only be modeled using statistical ordering of semantic words and actions. The real world brain is always going to be infinitely more complicated than this model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jaron has an amazing publicist. I challenge anyone to read Wikipedia’s history of VR ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality#History ) and assess him to fairly be called a founder. There was serious work being done for over a decade before he even started his firm; VPL never came close to being a standard and the VR tech today has hardly any relation to his “post symbolic” language. He’s certainly a very sm…
He did have a team that produced an early VR system. It took two expensive Silicon Graphics machines to run the headgear. I got to try it, with him present. There was a second person wired up, driving a model of a lobster or octopus or something, and I could sort of interact with them. All the right parts were there. But it didn't work very well. Too slow, and too low-rez. Turn head, wait for tracker and rendering to…
I certainly think Palmer Lucky could in many ways have at least a legitimate claim to being a founder of modern VR; his Oculus not only completely revived the industry but also showed other companies that there was indeed a market for this tech.
All of these arguments seem to think that the brain isn't also generating a statistical ordering of semantic words and actions. Obviously the brain has a way more complex network of subsystems with various specialties than the artificial models we have today and is able to generalize language, math, and positional reasoning and mix it with the older parts of the brain for reward and training mechanisms and it can do…
I generally agree with you, but I think this argument overlooks the lack of an obvious reward function in large language models. GPT-N has no survival instinct, because there is no existential threat of death, no fitness function to optimize to extend its survival at any cost. Without this need to survive, there can be no motivation, and without motivation there can be no intent. And without intent, can there truly b…
To crank it up a notch, the assigned task could involve generating itself subtasks which are handled in the same manner. This subtask generation could start to look a bit like will/intentionality.
Now consider if the top-level task is something like maximizing money in a bank account that pays for the compute to keep it running :)
(IMO this is still missing some key pieces around an emotion-like system for modulating intensities of actions and responses based on circumstantial conditions—but the basic structure is kinda there...)
Arguing against AI's "existence" or its dangers is cheap/free: if the whole thing flops, you get minor cookie points, and if it doesn't, people will have bigger problems to worry about than you or your opinion. AI is not gonna flop, and we better prepare.